I don't know if any of you remember me - I was a pretty active member on these forums during the pre-ACII days up until the pre-Brotherhood days (and by "pre-" I'm referring to the period of time when we all wait for the new game to come out, following every little bit of information etc.), after which I became unable to login to my account for over 2 EFFing years, because of some weird bug or something.

Anyway, I just finished watching Darksydephil (http://www.youtube.com/user/DSPGaming)'s playthrough of The Lost Archive DLC, where it is revealed that Lucy was indeed a Templar, or, to be exact, an ex-Assassin who during her mission to infiltrate Abstergo switched sides and decided to work with Abstergo.

Now, all I have to say is, WTF?!
Now, I'm not talking a "major plot twist-ish", positive "WTF" here, but rather something along the lines of, "REALLY, UBISOFT? THAT'S THE BEST YOU CAN COME WITH?"

Now, let me try and explain my view of this: I'm not that I'm all that upset just about the idea of Lucy being a Templar, but rather, I'm upset with Ubisoft because I have full confidence in the belief that the idea of Lucy's defection to the Templars was simply made up by Corey May (to whom I still have the utmost respect) and his crew on the go. I do NOT believe they intended for Lucy to be an Assassin-turned-Templar from the start, or even during the ACII days. Think about it. All throughout the first two games, her character was depicted as being more dedicated to the cause of the Assassins than anyone else. And no, it was not just her "being a good actress"; throughout the first to games, they were never any clues, EVER, as to indicate that she despises William as much as she supposedly did, or even any indication of her being "tired of fighting on the Assassin side" or anything like that. That was just made up by the writers during the writing process of Brotherhood (I assume it was not later than that, because it seems unlikely to me that they'd decide to kill her off before settling on an actual reason to do so - thus was born the idea of her being a Templar).

The one thing that has truly made me believe that this whole concept of Lucy being a Templar was made up on the go, is the fact that supposedly, the entire ruse of her "earning Desmond's trust my pretending to be an Assassin spy in Templar territory" was initiated by Vidic as a method to get Desmond to better cooperate with Abstergo, in case he didn't cooperate with them during his time in their Animus 1.0. Wait, what? Aside from some muttering about wanting to go home, and a little talking back to Vidic here and there, when and how exactly was Desmond "uncooperative" during his time at Abstergo? They had him under control. They had managed to have him submit to them and not try to resist them. They even succeeded in using him to discover the location of the first Apple, which was what they kidnapped him for in the first place. That being said, there was no need for them to initiate any elaborate plan to make Desmond any more cooperative than he already was - which is why I think, again, that the entire idea was made up on the go.

Another argument supporting this fact is that during the cutscene on the DLC which reveals the fact that Lucy was in league with the Templars, Vidic says to her that "when she meets the Assassins, she can ask them why there left her so long ago." Fact of the matter is, we have no evidence to show that the Assassins ever "left Lucy" - on the contrary, it'd be safe to assume that just as they were communicating with her during the first game, they had been keeping in touch with her for a long time before that - presumably 7 years prior to the events of AC1, when she first started her long-time mission of infiltrating Abstergo Industries and spying for the Assassins.

Also, if the entire event of her bringing Desmond to the Assassins' hideout in the beginning of ACII was just orchestrated by Abstergo to get Desmond to an environment where he felt safe and would cooperate, why did Lucy steal the Memory Core? That was not essential to whatever it is the Templars want to do with Desmond. That was just her bringing the Assassins a device that could provide them with an advantage, as slight as it may be, over the Templars.

Lastly, if the writers supposedly planned for Lucy to be revealed as a Templar from day 1, why would they have her train Desmond to control the Bleeding Effect and use it for his own gain? Why would she fully train her enemy to be skilled with a tool that could be used against her as a weapon later on?

Thoughts, anyone?

Assassin_M

03-25-2012, 09:56 PM

As long as you dont have tangible evidence or solid proof of it being "on the go" I`ll continue to believe that this was the plan from the start..

freddie_1897

03-25-2012, 10:01 PM

I'm neutral, I'll wait and see, for all you know she could have been a quad agent

pacmanate

03-25-2012, 10:21 PM

I kinda agree with what the OP is saying. In AC2 and Brotherhood Lucy never showed any signs of using Desmond for her own cause.

Yusuf on the other hand, I always thought he gave shifty looks to Ezio in revelations before you had to press A or X to start a mission haha

Ayreons-Will

03-25-2012, 10:31 PM

Well in a AC II, there were a few hints upon replaying it after The Lost Archive that make you go, oh of course, not sure about AC I ( I need to replay it) as for why, well it is obvious to me at least that Abstergo felt that Desmond would be able to synch better and actually corporate fully and be able to find the POE for them. The attack on the Base at the end of AC II is a staged event in order to get the Assassin's moving and make the plot even more believable. Like I said though to mean upon replaying from the beginning of part two makes it seem like it was all planned from at least that point on-ward.

Calvarok

03-25-2012, 10:33 PM

The reason it didn't seem like she was acting was because she really was a good person. She really did care about Desmond and Shaun and Rebecca, but she just didn't follow the same ideology anymore. in her message to 16, she says that she'll protect him, even though she can't let him leave. 16 died because he killed himself to leave his message. This explains how stressed out she was during Brotherhood, and really, to me, it makes perfect sense. I think that this was planned out from the beginning, to show just how grey morality is, and how neither side is truly evil.

LightRey

03-25-2012, 10:36 PM

The reason it didn't seem like she was acting was because she really was a good person. She really did care about Desmond and Shaun and Rebecca, but she just didn't follow the same ideology anymore. in her message to 16, she says that she'll protect him, even though she can't let him leave. 16 died because he killed himself to leave his message. This explains how stressed out she was during Brotherhood, and really, to me, it makes perfect sense. I think that this was planned out from the beginning, to show just how grey morality is, and how neither side is truly evil.
I completely agree. I also still think that the fact that she showed significantly more sadness and what seemed like stress about the Assassins lost than Rebecca and Shaun is a sign that she was feeling partly responsible.

twenty_glyphs

03-26-2012, 12:09 AM

I am not sure that they meant for Lucy to be a traitor until Brotherhood either, and have argued before that there aren't really any clues or foreshadowing in AC1 or AC2. But I do think that several things in AC2 make more sense with the hindsight that Lucy was working for Abstergo all along. The easy escape at the beginning and the fact that no one was armed when Vidic tried to recapture Desmond at the end do seem a little fishy, but they were never really foreshadowing Lucy as a traitor. I also agree that a lot of the guilt that Lucy is feeling over Subject 16 and the loss of Assassin teams can be attributed to her guilt over switching sides and her truly being a good and caring person. I do agree that Desmond seemed to be pretty cooperative, so I'm not sure what the purpose of a giant ruse would be to make him think he had escaped.

And while I don't think the twist of having Lucy being a traitor is necessarily lazy, I do think the way they presented it was rather lazy. I think The Lost Archive is a good story with interesting characterization and intrigue (it was by Jeffrey Yohalem, whose contributions to the series I have loved), but to show us such a major plot point in a DLC and to not even have a voice actor for Lucy seemed pretty lazy. The reason for Lucy's defection also seemed pretty lame. So she's mad that William is just using people? Does she not notice that this seems to be the modus operandi of the Templars? If they had at least explained it as her realizing that the Templar way was the right way, that would be easier to accept. Then it would make more sense for her to go along with the manipulation and deaths of Assassins, even though she felt bad about the deaths.

I'm still holding out a tiny bit of hope that there's still more to the mystery of Lucy and that they're just waiting to reveal it as part of the climax of Desmond's story in AC3, but we'll see.

SixKeys

03-26-2012, 12:22 AM

And while I don't think the twist of having Lucy being a traitor is necessarily lazy, I do think the way they presented it was rather lazy. I think The Lost Archive is a good story with interesting characterization and intrigue (it was by Jeffrey Yohalem, whose contributions to the series I have loved), but to show us such a major plot point in a DLC and to not even have a voice actor for Lucy seemed pretty lazy. The reason for Lucy's defection also seemed pretty lame. So she's mad that William is just using people? Does she not notice that this seems to be the modus operandi of the Templars? If they had at least explained it as her realizing that the Templar way was the right way, that would be easier to accept. Then it would make more sense for her to go along with the manipulation and deaths of Assassins, even though she felt bad about the deaths.

I completely agree. Just because they were able to write Lucy's death in a way that makes sense in the context of the earlier games (explaining her grief in AC2 by saying she was feeling guilty etc.) doesn't mean it was handled completely smoothly. At this point everyone has their own opinion about whether or not her death was planned from the very start or not and we will probably never find out conclusively either way. Whether or not it was planned, I still think the handwavy explanation they gave for it in the TLA DLC was lazy writing. Lucy was smart enough to see through Vidic's bullcrap, she knew he was exactly the kind of person who just uses people. So why was this behavior acceptable from him but not from William? They never explained why she thought the Templar ideology was more convincing than that of the assassins. Just saying she didn't like how William handled people doesn't make any sense when the Templars have done far worse things. Turning her into a Templar without giving us a believable reason just made her a dumb character when she started out as anything but, and that's unforgivable.

Steelers nati0n

03-26-2012, 12:32 AM

As to letting Desmond escape, what if it wasn't about his cooperation? Maybe Abstergo was trying to get Lucy closer to William.

Jexx21

03-26-2012, 01:17 AM

I told my friend who hasn't played Brotherhood or Revelations yet that Lucy was a Templar (he knew most of the very public spoilers, like Lucy dying), and he wasn't surprised.

I think that a lot of casual players suspected it.

tarrero

03-26-2012, 02:21 AM

S P O I L E R S ! ! ! !

I find odd that the BIGGEST and most shocking cliffhanger so far on this series, has only being explained through a very shortly publicized DLC that, being honest, not many people cared about. May be Ubisoft will address this on AC3 and end with these speculations, but until then, I think it is "fair" to believe that not everything was part of their "plan"

Jexx21

03-26-2012, 02:51 AM

how is this the biggest and most shocking thing?

TBH, I'd think it's more likely that the most shocking thing in the series was Minerva at the end of AC2.

Moultonborough

03-26-2012, 03:01 AM

This is from the Wiki "With her knowing of Lucy's true allegiance, Juno forced Desmond to stab and kill Lucy with his hidden blade." So, it was at least planned at the start of working on Brotherhood. Which would have been during the last stages of development of AC II most likely. So, I have to believe it was planned from the start. The only thing I don't get is why put it as a DLC.

SixKeys

03-26-2012, 03:26 AM

This is from the Wiki "With her knowing of Lucy's true allegiance, Juno forced Desmond to stab and kill Lucy with his hidden blade." So, it was at least planned at the start of working on Brotherhood. Which would have been during the last stages of development of AC II most likely. So, I have to believe it was planned from the start. The only thing I don't get is why put it as a DLC.

You do realize the AC Wiki is maintained by fans, right? All their information comes from the games (and books and whatnot), not from the developers themselves. So as soon as the fans found out Lucy was a traitor, the fans put it on the Wiki. It's not proof that it was planned since AC2.

tarrero

03-26-2012, 03:46 AM

how is this the biggest and most shocking thing?

TBH, I'd think it's more likely that the most shocking thing in the series was Minerva at the end of AC2.

Well I was stunned when Desmond stabbed and seemingly killed lucy (later confirmed) You know, the one who "saved" him from a certain death at abstergo and his "love interest".......

If you ask me, that event has not been properly addressed, at least so far.

Legendz54

03-26-2012, 04:00 AM

If only the team that worked on AC2 worked on ACB and ACR we may still have lucy today :( at least they are working on AC3

Jexx21

03-26-2012, 04:06 AM

actually, people that worked on AC2 worked on ACB/ACR.

and they have to get their story outlines approved by the main writers and producers for the franchise before they go along and start writing it.

Moultonborough

03-26-2012, 04:30 AM

You do realize the AC Wiki is maintained by fans, right? All their information comes from the games (and books and whatnot), not from the developers themselves. So as soon as the fans found out Lucy was a traitor, the fans put it on the Wiki. It's not proof that it was planned since AC2.

I know it's maintained by fans. While they don't change anything they check it to make sure what they put in games are accurate. If it is good enough for the developers to use it for double checking it should be for everyone. Besides, no one on this forum has proof for anything until it's out for sale. The developers are not just going to pop onto the forums and say "we thought of this from the start." So I doubt we will ever have true "proof" for everything.

frogger504

03-26-2012, 04:44 AM

If they did decide it last second, we can't use Brotherhood as an argument on either side, since it'd be the one they did it for so signs would be on purpose for that one game. Assuming it's true. Signs should be looked at before Brotherhood.

I shall remain Neutral in this discussion.

masterfenix2009

03-26-2012, 06:53 AM

I completely agree. The whole thing is rather annoying and cliche.

Poodle_of_Doom

03-26-2012, 08:25 AM

Another argument supporting this fact is that during the cutscene on the DLC which reveals Lucy's having been a Templar, Vidic says to Lucy that "When she meets the Assassins, she can ask them why there left her so long ago." Fact of the matter is, we have no evidence to show that the Assassins eever "left Lucy" - on the contrary, it'd be safe to assume that just as they were communicating with her during the first game, they had been doing so for a long time before that - presumably 7 years prior to the events of AC1, when she first started her long-time mission of infiltrating Abstergo Industries and spying for the Assassins.

One thing I have to mention is that I watched EscoBlades walkthrough of the DLC, and he did a really good job of everything. He got some of the hidden letters and everything. At that, one of the letters was from William to Clay, talking about how they had someone one the inside, and that they haven't had commuication in a few years with that person.

E-Zekiel

03-26-2012, 08:35 AM

To some posters:

You are kind of confusing the issue. There are people here that are assuming it was a last minute decision based on Lucy's seeming sincerity in the series, and then the sudden "last minute" change to oh she was spy.

Lucy did seem sincere to me, toward the others. In that she cared about them (particularly Desmond). But some of you guys seem to be assuming that because she was more aligned with the Templars, that that automatically meant she wanted all the others dead or something.

What you're not seeing is that this somewhat humanizes her - she doesn't want them dead. If anything, it more struck me that she wanted to convert them. To get them to see her side. Especially Desmond, again. But at the same time? Some of the times you catch her at her computer in AC2/ACB, she seems really uneasy, even then, with what she's doing.

Anyway, I don't personally like that she turned out to be a spy, either. I wish it had gone another way. But that doesn't mean it's suddenly a crappy story just because it didn't go how I wanted it to go. This some kind of sense of superiority in terms of what's better or something - I guess, that since people are playing a game as opposed to watching a movie, they have this attachment that makes them have to have a story go one way otherwise it's crap. Kinda like people who were like OMG THE ME3 ENDING SUCKED AGHEOIAGOEHRGAOEHRG.

The overall story of ME1-ME3, including the ending, was phenomenal and awesome. Just because the ending was ****ing depressing and Shephard ended up getting somewhat screwed despite his heroic efforts doesn't make it any less of a good story, just a very depressing story.

LightRey

03-26-2012, 09:26 AM

S P O I L E R S ! ! ! !

I find odd that the BIGGEST and most shocking cliffhanger so far on this series, has only being explained through a very shortly publicized DLC that, being honest, not many people cared about. May be Ubisoft will address this on AC3 and end with these speculations, but until then, I think it is "fair" to believe that not everything was part of their "plan"
You feel Lucy's death/betrayal is the resolution of the biggest and most shocking cliffhanger in the series? Did you not play AC1 through to the ending or something or ACII for that matter? Those endings were way bigger cliffhangers than this.

iNEEDSmeINSIDES

03-26-2012, 01:21 PM

I'm sure it will be addressed in ACIII, I highly doubt Rebecca or Shaun (or even William for that matter) won't ask Desmond why he shanked Lucy. We're not even sure at this point if Desmond is aware of the fact due to the way TLA was delivered.

I just see TLA as a bit of preview treat for fans of the series.

So that's why she was playing Project Legacy?!

zerocooll21

03-26-2012, 01:48 PM

I am not sure that they meant for Lucy to be a traitor until Brotherhood either, and have argued before that there aren't really any clues or foreshadowing in AC1 or AC2. But I do think that several things in AC2 make more sense with the hindsight that Lucy was working for Abstergo all along. The easy escape at the beginning and the fact that no one was armed when Vidic tried to recapture Desmond at the end do seem a little fishy, but they were never really foreshadowing Lucy as a traitor. I also agree that a lot of the guilt that Lucy is feeling over Subject 16 and the loss of Assassin teams can be attributed to her guilt over switching sides and her truly being a good and caring person. I do agree that Desmond seemed to be pretty cooperative, so I'm not sure what the purpose of a giant ruse would be to make him think he had escaped.

And while I don't think the twist of having Lucy being a traitor is necessarily lazy, I do think the way they presented it was rather lazy. I think The Lost Archive is a good story with interesting characterization and intrigue (it was by Jeffrey Yohalem, whose contributions to the series I have loved), but to show us such a major plot point in a DLC and to not even have a voice actor for Lucy seemed pretty lazy. The reason for Lucy's defection also seemed pretty lame. So she's mad that William is just using people? Does she not notice that this seems to be the modus operandi of the Templars? If they had at least explained it as her realizing that the Templar way was the right way, that would be easier to accept. Then it would make more sense for her to go along with the manipulation and deaths of Assassins, even though she felt bad about the deaths.

I'm still holding out a tiny bit of hope that there's still more to the mystery of Lucy and that they're just waiting to reveal it as part of the climax of Desmond's story in AC3, but we'll see.

+1

Jexx21

03-26-2012, 02:09 PM

Templars are good people too!

They have families, they care about others! Sure, some are greedy, some are power-hungry. But a lot of them are just doing something that they think will improve the world for everyone. Lucy is a great example of that.

SixKeys

03-26-2012, 03:13 PM

Anyway, I don't personally like that she turned out to be a spy, either. I wish it had gone another way. But that doesn't mean it's suddenly a crappy story just because it didn't go how I wanted it to go. This some kind of sense of superiority in terms of what's better or something - I guess, that since people are playing a game as opposed to watching a movie, they have this attachment that makes them have to have a story go one way otherwise it's crap. Kinda like people who were like OMG THE ME3 ENDING SUCKED AGHEOIAGOEHRGAOEHRG.

The overall story of ME1-ME3, including the ending, was phenomenal and awesome. Just because the ending was ****ing depressing and Shephard ended up getting somewhat screwed despite his heroic efforts doesn't make it any less of a good story, just a very depressing story.

Not to derail this into a ME3 discussion, I just want to point out that most fans were upset with the ending because it was filled with plotholes, not because it was depressing. I've talked to ME fans who wouldn't have minded a downer ending so long as it made sense but when nothing you have done in the earlier games justifies the character suddenly acting in a confusing way and when the ending just introduces lots of new questions instead of answering old ones, people are going to be disappointed and baffled.

It's the same with Lucy. We had NO indication whatsoever from AC1 and AC2 that she even remotely agreed with the Templar philosophy. No shady holes in her dialogue that would have made us suspect perhaps she was keeping secrets from us. No indication that she felt the assassins had abandoned her or that she harbored any resentment or at least doubt towards William. Then suddenly she's killed off at the end of ACB and we don't get a reason until a DLC released months after ACR, where the explanation is reduced to a flashback of Vidic talking to Lucy (with no input from Lucy's voice actress, making her a very distant and static character in that scene) and one single letter where she explains she totally agrees with the Templar ideology and has done so for all this time. It's completely baffling. It's not the "downer ending" that has fans peeved, not the fact that she turned out to be a traitor. It would have been a great twist if it had been written better. But the fact is there weren't any hints about her questionable loyalty prior to ACB, a game that wasn't originally meant to be part of the franchise until they decided to stretch out the story. If Lucy had at least said something like "sure, the Templars did some bad things, but I'm sure they're not all evil" in one of her conversations with Desmond, it would have been better. At least it would have been something. But she was shown to be completely dedicated to the assassins and never indicated that she sympathized with the Templars in any way. Up until the letter in ACR where it's quickly explained away in just a couple of sentences. It's just bad writing, plain and simple.

tarrero

03-26-2012, 03:48 PM

You feel Lucy's death/betrayal is the resolution of the biggest and most shocking cliffhanger in the series? Did you not play AC1 through to the ending or something or ACII for that matter? Those endings were way bigger cliffhangers than this.

Well, I have played all AC creed games and even though AC2 comes in a close second in this matter, killing what it seemed at first to be the person who saved him from a certain death and even his love interest was unexpected, but hey, everyone is entitled to think diffrently.

E-Zekiel

03-26-2012, 05:02 PM

It's the same with Lucy. We had NO indication whatsoever from AC1 and AC2 that she even remotely agreed with the Templar philosophy. No shady holes in her dialogue that would have made us suspect perhaps she was keeping secrets from us. No indication that she felt the assassins had abandoned her or that she harbored any resentment or at least doubt towards William. Then suddenly she's killed off at the end of ACB and we don't get a reason until a DLC released months after ACR, where the explanation is reduced to a flashback of Vidic talking to Lucy (with no input from Lucy's voice actress, making her a very distant and static character in that scene) and one single letter where she explains she totally agrees with the Templar ideology and has done so for all this time. It's completely baffling. It's not the "downer ending" that has fans peeved, not the fact that she turned out to be a traitor. It would have been a great twist if it had been written better. But the fact is there weren't any hints about her questionable loyalty prior to ACB, a game that wasn't originally meant to be part of the franchise until they decided to stretch out the story. If Lucy had at least said something like "sure, the Templars did some bad things, but I'm sure they're not all evil" in one of her conversations with Desmond, it would have been better. At least it would have been something. But she was shown to be completely dedicated to the assassins and never indicated that she sympathized with the Templars in any way. Up until the letter in ACR where it's quickly explained away in just a couple of sentences. It's just bad writing, plain and simple.

And this is part of the reason why I don't particularly like it. That it was sudden, random (although the presentation was totally solid..how it took control of Desmond and no matter how much you tried to direct him away, he stabs her)...and unexplained all throughout ACR until the final DLC.

I have to disagree on the hints thing, though. To be honest with you, although we didn't really know what it was, I do believe in retrospect that the trail in AC2 was a hint, as well as Lucy being emotional in a couple of scenes (before quickly dismissing it as losing more teams of Assassins).

I would say that the story of it is good... (IE that she turned out to be a spy), but that its presentation was kind of lacking, and "rushed" I would say is a good descriptor. Didn't take the time to flush it out.

Poodle_of_Doom

03-26-2012, 06:13 PM

Does anyone else think that the DLC was created as it exists in it's present form simply to please the masses, and give some closure on Lucy's story? I know a lot of people were pissed about it. I figure maybe they made the DLC to close that chunk of story sooner rather than later, only to make it easier to end the rest of the story. At that, does anyone else find it odd that Desmond wasn't upset about Lucy's death when he wakes up?

CanterburyTales

03-27-2012, 12:52 AM

Hey all,

I don't know if any of you remember me - I was a pretty active member on these forums during the pre-ACII days up until the pre-Brotherhood days (and by "pre-" I'm referring to the period of time when we all wait for the new game to come out, following every little bit of information etc.), after which I became unable to login to my account for over 2 EFFing years, because of some weird bug or something.

Anyway, I just finished watching Darksydephil (http://www.youtube.com/user/DSPGaming)'s playthrough of The Lost Archive DLC, where it is revealed that Lucy was indeed a Templar, or, to be exact, an ex-Assassin who during her mission to infiltrate Abstergo switched sides and decided to work with Abstergo.

Now, all I have to say is, WTF?!
Now, I'm not talking a "major plot twist-ish", positive "WTF" here, but rather something along the lines of, "REALLY, UBISOFT? THAT'S THE BEST YOU CAN COME WITH?"

Now, let me try and explain my view of this: I'm not that I'm all that upset just about the idea of Lucy being a Templar, but rather, I'm upset with Ubisoft because I have full confidence in the belief that the idea of Lucy's defection to the Templars was simply made up by Corey May (to whom I still have the utmost respect) and his crew on the go. I do NOT believe they intended for Lucy to be an Assassin-turned-Templar from the start, or even during the ACII days. Think about it. All throughout the first two games, her character was depicted as being more dedicated to the cause of the Assassins than anyone else. And no, it was not just her "being a good actress"; throughout the first to games, they were never any clues, EVER, as to indicate that she despises William as much as she supposedly did, or even any indication of her being "tired of fighting on the Assassin side" or anything like that. That was just made up by the writers during the writing process of Brotherhood (I assume it was not later than that, because it seems unlikely to me that they'd decide to kill her off before settling on an actual reason to do so - thus was born the idea of her being a Templar).

The one thing that has truly made me believe that this whole concept of Lucy being a Templar was made up on the go, is the fact that supposedly, the entire ruse of her "earning Desmond's trust my pretending to be an Assassin spy in Templar territory" was initiated by Vidic as a method to get Desmond to better cooperate with Abstergo, in case he didn't cooperate with them during his time in their Animus 1.0. Wait, what? Aside from some muttering about wanting to go home, and a little talking back to Vidic here and there, when and how exactly was Desmond "uncooperative" during his time at Abstergo? They had him under control. They had managed to have him submit to them and not try to resist them. They even succeeded in using him to discover the location of the first Apple, which was what they kidnapped him for in the first place. That being said, there was no need for them to initiate any elaborate plan to make Desmond any more cooperative than he already was - which is why I think, again, that the entire idea was made up on the go.

Another argument supporting this fact is that during the cutscene on the DLC which reveals the fact that Lucy was in league with the Templars, Vidic says to her that "when she meets the Assassins, she can ask them why there left her so long ago." Fact of the matter is, we have no evidence to show that the Assassins ever "left Lucy" - on the contrary, it'd be safe to assume that just as they were communicating with her during the first game, they had been keeping in touch with her for a long time before that - presumably 7 years prior to the events of AC1, when she first started her long-time mission of infiltrating Abstergo Industries and spying for the Assassins.

Also, if the entire event of her bringing Desmond to the Assassins' hideout in the beginning of ACII was just orchestrated by Abstergo to get Desmond to an environment where he felt safe and would cooperate, why did Lucy steal the Memory Core? That was not essential to whatever it is the Templars want to do with Desmond. That was just her bringing the Assassins a device that could provide them with an advantage, as slight as it may be, over the Templars.

Lastly, if the writers supposedly planned for Lucy to be revealed as a Templar from day 1, why would they have her train Desmond to control the Bleeding Effect and use it for his own gain? Why would she fully train her enemy to be skilled with a tool that could be used against her as a weapon later on?

Thoughts, anyone?

I agree with you, 100%. To me, they turned the Lucy we always knew (who was smart, caring and sincere with Desmond) and turned her into a dumb, manipulative and deceitful little b*tch! The whole thing with Lucy in the Lost Archive DLC looks like they retroactively made her into a Templar.

So Lucy changed allegiance because she felt that the Assassins abandoned her? Isn't she supposed to be deep undercover and have little to no contact? Speaking of contact with the other Assassins, she actually WAS in contact with them.

Ugh. I could go on and on and on...

Razrback16

03-27-2012, 01:00 AM

I agree with you, 100%. To me, they turned the Lucy we always knew (who was smart, caring and sincere with Desmond) and turned her into a dumb, manipulative and deceitful little b*tch! The whole thing with Lucy in the Lost Archive DLC looks like they retroactively made Lucy a Templar.

So Lucy changed allegiance because she felt that the Assassins abandoned her? Isn't she supposed to be deep undercover and have little to no contact. Speaking of contact with the other Assassins, she actually WAS in contact with them?

Ugh. I could go on and on and on...

Pretty much summarizes my feelings as well. I don't like the way the spun the Lucy story...really hope they make up for it with some good storytelling in AC3 and introduce a decent girl for Desmond. Hopefully someone good-hearted like Hannah Mueller.

SixKeys

03-27-2012, 01:54 AM

And this is part of the reason why I don't particularly like it. That it was sudden, random (although the presentation was totally solid..how it took control of Desmond and no matter how much you tried to direct him away, he stabs her)...and unexplained all throughout ACR until the final DLC.

I have to disagree on the hints thing, though. To be honest with you, although we didn't really know what it was, I do believe in retrospect that the trail in AC2 was a hint, as well as Lucy being emotional in a couple of scenes (before quickly dismissing it as losing more teams of Assassins).

The red trail was in ACB, not AC2. Since they already had her death planned out when they decided to make ACB, that game had several hints (like Desmond wondering how Lucy had so easily managed to smuggle data from Abstergo). In AC2 though, nada.

CanterburyTales

03-28-2012, 12:10 AM

The red trail was in ACB, not AC2. Since they already had her death planned out when they decided to make ACB, that game had several hints (like Desmond wondering how Lucy had so easily managed to smuggle data from Abstergo). In AC2 though, nada.

It should also be mentioned that the writers confirmed that the red trail in AC: B was simply meant to help players find their way back to the Sanctuary, and that the red color was an oversight.

LightRey

03-28-2012, 12:18 AM

It should also be mentioned that the writers confirmed that the red trail in AC: B was simply meant to help players find their way back to the Sanctuary, and that the red color was an oversight.
Not so much an oversight as that the entire association of red = evil was a false one. Red only means enemy when actually looking at an enemy. It can also mean blood (glyph clues), or even fingerprint (start of ACII).

Jexx21

03-28-2012, 12:20 AM

I believe that Lucy was meant to be a Templar from at least AC2, if not AC1.

Tetsou88

03-29-2012, 08:42 PM

If Eagle vision can pick out enemies you know nothing about in a crowd, how come Desmond couldn't just see Lucy as a traitor?

rileypoole1234

03-29-2012, 08:51 PM

If Eagle vision can pick out enemies you know nothing about in a crowd, how come Desmond couldn't just see Lucy as a traitor?

I don't know really how it works, but maybe it's because Lucy had some sort of feelings for Desmond, and she felt bad about what she was doing a bit. I'm not sure how Eagle vision works exactly but that could be one reason.

Jexx21

03-29-2012, 08:53 PM

Maybe because Lucy had no hard feelings against Desmond and very much cared for him?

Templars can like people too, even if they are on the opposite side. Same reason Al Mualim wasn't red until the end of AC1, he cared for Altair like his own son, he probably thought that he could convince Altair to join the Templars at first, but once he realized he couldn't, he had to kill him so that Altair wasn't a huge threat later.

Tetsou88

03-29-2012, 08:59 PM

Maybe because Lucy had no hard feelings against Desmond and very much cared for him?

Templars can like people too, even if they are on the opposite side. Same reason Al Mualim wasn't red until the end of AC1, he cared for Altair like his own son, he probably thought that he could convince Altair to join the Templars at first, but once he realized he couldn't, he had to kill him so that Altair wasn't a huge threat later.

The Al Mualim part makes sense, I forgot about that.

Sukramo

03-29-2012, 09:42 PM

If 16 knew that Lucy was a templar, then why on earth didnt he tell Desmond so in the glyphs??? It makes no sence.

Also the locked door in Abstergo. Was the a Templar plan too? What if Desmond couldnt open it? GG templar plan.

The Abstergo dossier mentions that Daniel Cross isnt the best agent, someone else it. That someone CANT be Lucy as she really hasent done anything compared to Daniels wipeing out of assasains.

The more I think about it, the more I think Lucy wasent suppoed to be a Templar from the start. Then again, common sence in the plot basicaly vanished in Revelations so eh.

Assassin_M

03-29-2012, 09:49 PM

If 16 knew that Lucy was a templar, then why on earth didnt he tell Desmond so in the glyphs??? It makes no sence.

Also the locked door in Abstergo. Was the a Templar plan too? What if Desmond couldnt open it? GG templar plan.

The Abstergo dossier mentions that Daniel Cross isnt the best agent, someone else it. That someone CANT be Lucy as she really hasent done anything compared to Daniels wipeing out of assasains.

The more I think about it, the more I think Lucy wasent suppoed to be a Templar from the start. Then again, common sence in the plot basicaly vanished in Revelations so eh.
16 couldnt remember his own name.. he could remember the historical events and templar influences easily because of the bleeding effect..
Lucy was supposed to bring the Apple right to Abstergo.. seems better than murdering the Mentor IMO
not to mention the willingness..

Poodle_of_Doom

03-29-2012, 10:01 PM

Maybe because Lucy had no hard feelings against Desmond and very much cared for him?

Templars can like people too, even if they are on the opposite side. Same reason Al Mualim wasn't red until the end of AC1, he cared for Altair like his own son, he probably thought that he could convince Altair to join the Templars at first, but once he realized he couldn't, he had to kill him so that Altair wasn't a huge threat later.

It might have something to do with actual knowledge. Instead of being an actual forsight, maybe it requires some sort of a prelude like actual working knowledge. Like in the case with Altair and Al Mualim, Altair didn't know until the end. But then he had a working knowledge of the events occuring around him. In the same way, Desmond can't see the bigger picture, and can't perceive the actions and intentions of others, or use his sixth sense accurately.

SixKeys

03-29-2012, 11:35 PM

Eagle Vision is more like intuition. If the other person is a very good actor, they can convince the assassin to believe they're on his side. Every guard shows up as red because the assassin knows intuitively that they could instantly turn into a threat as soon as he does something to tick them off. People he assumes are allies will show up as blue as long as he doesn't suspect them of being a threat.

Sukramo

03-30-2012, 07:04 AM

16 couldnt remember his own name..

Sure he did, he said "They call me Subject 16" He STILL didnt tell Desmond on Animus island.................So stupid.

Lucy was supposed to bring the Apple right to Abstergo

Supposed being the important part here. She hasent done anything yet and somehow she is their most important agent? No.

Assassin_M

03-30-2012, 10:06 AM

Sure he did, he said "They call me Subject 16" He STILL didnt tell Desmond on Animus island.................So stupid.

Supposed being the important part here. She hasent done anything yet and somehow she is their most important agent? No.
Both your replies are Invalid..
By name I meant his real name, Clay..
and the templars dont seem to have discovered Lucy`s failure yet; thus still placing her in high regard..

DiamondBlade_R

03-30-2012, 10:28 AM

and the templars dont seem to have discovered Lucy`s failure yet; thus still placing her in high regard..

It's not about them holding her in high regard "despite her failure" - it's about them holding her in such high regard - even going as far as to say that she's one of their best agents - even though she hasn't done anything for them actively as a mole among the Assassins besides for "earning Desmond's trust."

deadly_thought

03-30-2012, 10:57 AM

it fails to make sense then again its ubisoft and they havnt made a decent AC title in years

JCearlyyears

03-30-2012, 04:54 PM

it fails to make sense then again its ubisoft and they havnt made a decent AC title in years

I have to disagree.

LightRey

03-30-2012, 04:57 PM

I have to disagree.
I agree with your disagreeing.

Assassin_M

03-30-2012, 04:58 PM

I agree with your disagreeing.
Same here..

DiamondBlade_R

03-30-2012, 05:00 PM

It might have something to do with actual knowledge. Instead of being an actual forsight, maybe it requires some sort of a prelude like actual working knowledge. Like in the case with Altair and Al Mualim, Altair didn't know until the end. But then he had a working knowledge of the events occuring around him. In the same way, Desmond can't see the bigger picture, and can't perceive the actions and intentions of others, or use his sixth sense accurately.
+1'd :)

Tetsou88

03-30-2012, 06:32 PM

The whole Lucy using Desmond thing makes sense. While he was being co-operative under their control, it was only a matter of time before he attempted to break out, or stopped co-operating. They knew that the best way to get into the Grand Temple, and get all the Pieces of Eden would be to let Desmond think he's doing it for good on his own free will. As soon as he gets what he's after, Lucy would betray him and the Templars would win.

If the Templars were to just let Desmond try to get into the Grand Temple for them, he would at some point turn on them. They also didn't want another incident like the one they had with Subject 16.

Although I agree that them revealing how Lucy was a Templar was a bit weak, they could've made it better.

Another thing, Why did Clay grab Desmond when Animus Island was being deleted? I didn't get that part. He's all like "I'm saving you!" But why grab him in the first place?

Also, who else had a feeling Clay was going to try to betray Desmond? The way he acted and when he said "Can I go with you next time?" put an idea in my head that he was going to try something, even though he eventually did not.

pirate1802

03-30-2012, 06:41 PM

I agree with your disagreeing.

I agree with you agreeing with his disagreement.

Poodle_of_Doom

03-30-2012, 08:07 PM

The whole Lucy using Desmond thing makes sense. While he was being co-operative under their control, it was only a matter of time before he attempted to break out, or stopped co-operating. They knew that the best way to get into the Grand Temple, and get all the Pieces of Eden would be to let Desmond think he's doing it for good on his own free will. As soon as he gets what he's after, Lucy would betray him and the Templars would win.

If the Templars were to just let Desmond try to get into the Grand Temple for them, he would at some point turn on them. They also didn't want another incident like the one they had with Subject 16.

Although I agree that them revealing how Lucy was a Templar was a bit weak, they could've made it better.

Another thing, Why did Clay grab Desmond when Animus Island was being deleted? I didn't get that part. He's all like "I'm saving you!" But why grab him in the first place?

Also, who else had a feeling Clay was going to try to betray Desmond? The way he acted and when he said "Can I go with you next time?" put an idea in my head that he was going to try something, even though he eventually did not.

I took it as him sheltering Desmond from the threat of deletion... forcing the machine to erase him instead. At that, from the DLC, I think the "incident" with S16 wasn't necessarily an incident so much as it was purposeful. There was a spot in the DLC where Clay figured out Lucy had switched sides, and she explained why. She followed that up by telling him that because he now knew the truth, she couldn't allow him to leave, and tell the others. I think he figured out that he could slip into the animus, if only he commited suicide....